What it Takes to be a Teacher

I have a question mike. Are you saying that it is the student's fault for the cruddy literacy and scholastic results for the U.S? Or does that "small minority of bad teachers" have that much influence?

And to be honest, I see a lot more of teachers UNION bashing than teacher bashing going on here. I don't see how anybody could be running a union after doing everything that you outlined above.

Nine Afghan boys were killed while collecting firewood on Tuesday in what has been described as one of the worst cases of mistaken identity by the International Security Assistance Force.

NATO issued a statement Wednesday apologizing for the killings in Darah-Ye Pech district in Afghanistan's Kunar province. The victims were aged nine to 15 and included two sets of brothers. A tenth boy was injured but survived the aerial attack by helicopter gunners.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/02/afghanistan-kids-killed.html

And to everyone else? Mike has quite a few facts correct in his blog. I believe some of his opinions are faulty, but not alot of his facts. Of course, he is implying that teachers are FORCED to do extracurricular activities. Thats Hogwash.

The fact of the matter is, There are a lot of good teachers out there. But most of the ones I knew that really cared about educating children would't call in sick and go protest. They just soldier on. Teachers do get the brown end of the stick sometimes. But the best ones usually get tenure. Good for them! Those are the ones that we all remember, not the ones that would stir up trouble. The ones that TAUGHT us what they were supposed to. The ones that made learning interesting for the subjects sake. God bless good teachers! I really hope they don't get overshadowed by the whiners and the complainers. Good teachers AREN'T in it for the money and benefits. They do it cause they love it, right mike? Isn't that what you are saying?

But let's face it, just because you have the desire to do something, doesn't mean you are great at it. If teachers don't make up the majority of our apparently flawed education system, who does? Maybe we should look at getting rid of them.

ochosinco

I am not saying that at all.

I just don't see how we can ever expect to win the war and gain the trust of the people. Killing their children sure won't do it.

Didymus I never implied teachers are forced to go to those activities. They go because they love their school and their students.

sinco, I would say that the man who opened fired on the military men has blood on his hands. This seems to be nothing more than an argument that led to gunfire. Something that is almost common in the United States.

I realize that the author of the piece you linked to is taking bounds and leaps to somehow link this tragic shooting to terrorism and even more so to Islam, but he really is grasping at straws, as you are.

Painting an entire religion a certain way because a fight broke out and one person decided to end that fight with a gun.

Didymus, so in your opinion, are you saying that people that are fighting for their rights "stir up trouble" and are "whiners and complainers"?

You say in one post that "And to be honest, I see a lot more of teachers UNION bashing than teacher bashing going on here."

yet you follow that statement in your very next post slamming any teacher that would protest for their rights to collective bargaining as stirring up trouble, whiners and complainers, and generally not good teachers. So in this case you contradict your own statement where you insist that there is more teacher union bashing than teacher bashing by immediately writing a post in which you bash any teacher that would protest.

I can guarantee you that there are teachers in Madison right now that are excellent teachers. They are not there, as you would have some to believe, wanting more money. As it has been stated over and over and specifically on this blog it continues to be ignored, the teachers unions have already given into Walker's demands of how much they pay into retirement. They are not there fighting for more money, they are there to protect their rights.

I do find it interesting that my blog mentions nothing about protesting of any kind. I was specifically talking about what it actually takes to be a teacher and you turned it into an opportunity for yourself to trash protesters. Why weren't you this hard on the TEA Party protests? Why weren't you this hard on the TEA Partiers that would go to a town hall meeting and shout all the way through it and shout down and boo anyone that offered a different opinion?

While I'm thinking of it I would really love to know how you came to the conclusion that I was implying that teachers are forced to go to extracurricular activities?

How many years of teaching experience do you have Mr. Pot?

I've already apologized for that convo. I'm sorry that apparently apologies mean little to you.

I'm sorry SW but this is an adult conversation. Maybe you can go find another blog where childish namecalling is more appropriate.

Running away from a simple question yet again eh Mike?

Nope just think that if you wan to call names and act like a child you should go elsewhere

Actually since I have admitted time and again that I don't believe the way you say I do. I don't know if you've not read those posts or just choose to ignore them.

So, how many years of teaching experience do you have Mike?

I keep forgetting that you view anyone not like you as completely stupid and unworthy of your respect.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 6:36 PM

so Michael, tell me how many folks who post on your blog, before reading this particular thread, do you think do not have a good perception of what it takes to become a teacher? Do you think we are all stupid?

I have one year of teaching experience, most of the front part of the blog was from mine and fellow students experience in preparing for teaching.

My parents though have roughly 60 years teaching experience, the second part is from what I have seen and witnessed through their eyes. I also based a lot of the second part around other teachers I have known throughout the years. After all, I have been surrounded by teachers for most of my life.

I think there are a majority who do not have a good perception of what it takes to become a teacher, otherwise what would be the point of writing the blog doodle? I don't think you are stupid, not at all, and I have never called one of your viewpoints or you because of your viewpoint ignorant.

Since you broached the subject sinco, I think your statement "You know the drill, conservatives and republicans are always wrong, and liberals and democrats are always right (no pun intended)!" could very easily be reversed and fit you perfectly.

You know the drill, liberals and democrats are always wrong, and conservatives and republicans are always right.

Just a little honest from you would fit quite well here as well, instead of your usual posting that since I am always defending liberals and democrats (which is actually not true) there is no reason for you to do the same.

"Yes, Michael, you have retracted that statement, although far too late, and certainly very minimally."

So for you it doesn't matter that a retraction and an apology occur it matters when that happens? If it happens to late by your estimation it doesn't count? Is that what you are saying?

Other than the PRAXIS information, I think most people have a much better idea of what it takes to be a teacher than you give them credit for. I'm pretty sure everyone knows you need to have a bachelor's degree to teach. I also imagine most people have at least a general idea about student teaching.

So, one year of experience. I guess you wouldn't be one of those who go on to graduate school while still teaching huh?

So if it isn't because of tenure, why is it hard to remove a teacher after three years?

In the first three years of a teacher's teaching experience the school they are working for tries very hard to mold that teacher into what they expect. Withing those first three years if a teacher doesn't fit that mold they can be released. Contracts typically are either a one year contract or a three year contract, depending on the school district. After three years the teacher has become a part of that school. Not only will the union fight to keep a teacher, schools themselves will also fight to keep on a teacher.

So this entire blog, in your opinion, was a complete waste of time? Tell me then SW, what all goes into student teaching (I left a majority of it out instead focusing on just a short amount)?

Also, can anyone that has a bachelor's degree teach, or do they have to be specialized?

"Why weren't you this hard on the TEA Party protests? Why weren't you this hard on the TEA Partiers that would go to a town hall meeting and shout all the way through it and shout down and boo anyone that offered a different opinion?"

Hmmmm, how could this be turned around to express what Mike has done, let me think........

Mike,

I think most of your blogs are a complete waste of time.

I don't think anyone is interested in all that goes into student teaching. But in the interest of answering your inane question. It depends.

"Also, can anyone that has a bachelor's degree teach, or do they have to be specialized?"

Yes.

So if you didn't fit the mold at the school you were working at, was it because you already know everything and refuse to adapt to changes in the world?

"I have been expressing my distaste for those in your profession doing the things they are doing in Wisconsin"

How distasteful those horrible people are. Redressing their government (as guaranteed in the Constitution) to keep their rights that the governor is trying to take away. How dare them!

I never called you a conservative, sinco. I have just asked several times in the past as I am now why you feel the need to want me to go after the left as much as I go after the right yet you won't do the same. Your stock answer is typically that since I go after the right there is no reason for you to do it, as you did again in your post. It seems a rather normal question. Yet you continuously bring the focus right back to me rather than answer.

"Just seeking a little balance here is all!"

Let me get this straight I am by all accounts the only liberal on this site. There are a few moderates, but the vast majority of posters (including a blogger) are conservative and you are just seeking a little balance? Really? I would love to know your definition of balance.

"What I am saying is that even after the very short time it took to be very aware that the Tuscon shooter was not motivated by conservative rhetoric, or even liberal rhetoric for that matter, and you were made very aware of that fact, you still were too stubborn to back off of your original presumptions that were not ever backed by any evidence! (Jumping to Conclusions)"

If that is true then why have you never gone after any of the posters that almost as quickly as I jumped to a conclusion that he did this because of the right jumped to their own conclusion that he was a "leftist" based solely on the accounts of an anonymous Twitterer and have not only never backed off that claim never admitted that they might have been wrong. You say you are just trying to bring balance. I don't see that at all because for months now you have reminded me at every turn about the conclusion I jumped to despite denouncing it myself at a later period but the posters who branded him a leftist saw absolutely no ill will from you.

How do you explain that? Balance to me would be calling out left and right posters for what you say is going overboard in the other direction but you don't. Does that not seem at the slightest hypocritical or the very least contradictory to you?

Ahh, what's a SW post without an insult, posed as a serious question.

You claim I run away from questions and yet one of your answers is "depends". While it is true that it varies from student teacher to student teacher the format for their experience is pretty much set.

As for your answer regarding the bachelor's degree you are only partly right. While most states have recently been allowing those with a math or science bachelor's degree they still require even those teachers to go into training. The rest however do need to have a specialization. I can't, for instance, teach English despite having a bachelor's degree because my degree is in History. An elementary teacher can't teach at the high school level (or vice versa) unless they go back to school and get the corresponding degree.

Now, to your little insult posed as a serious question. I refuse to answer it. Like I said this is an adult blog and if you can't do any better than cheap insults and immature name calling then I will continue to not answer your questions. Yes, yes I know you will come back and say that you have gotten under my skin and/or I'm running away from questions. But I expect that out of you.

Sinco, I never said you did call the shooter a left winger. Yet you did very publicly go after only Democrats who shamelessly tried to raise money of the shootings while remaining quite on the Republicans that did the same. My question was why did you not go after those posters, maybe I should have said specifically, that jumped to the conclusion on the other end. You did continuously say that the shooting was not a left or right issue but you only addressed that to me and the moderates on the thread, never to any of the conservatives who insisted that he was a "leftist".

I can read just fine, but it does nothing to prove your point. There were at least three to four posters who claimed the shooter to be a leftist yet you never once in the days or the months that followed continuously flag them for jumping to conclusions, you never even mentioned them.

Here's the best part, though. You like to make a big deal about how you see me as a hypocrite and even post examples. You also like to claim that I have never admitted to having hypocritical stances. Yet when given the same chance to admit that you are being hypocritical in only going nuclear when a "leftist" blamed the shooting on the right but staying deafening quite when those from the right called the shooter a "leftist", you not only refuse to, you type your refusal in all caps (and for some reason with quotation marks around it, were you quoting someone else?) and then insult me as not being able to read.

Is this the "balance" you referred to earlier? Several other posters also have the conservative response covered yet you felt the need to respond in much the same as they did by showing examples of, and only of, Democrats who were doing the same as Republicans. So why if I had the liberal response covered, and other posters had the conservative response covered did you feel that there needed to be a "balance"?

Okay so it's alright by you if you posters call someone a "leftist" even though you continually addressed myself and other moderate (no I am not claiming to be a moderate) posters to remind us that it wasn't a left or right issue.

But that is circular logic at it's best. You didn't feel the need to respond to posters claiming that they guy was leftist because I had that covered and you gave me a pass because their rhetoric wasn't as bad as mine. In other words, you flat out gave them a pass.

If it really is getting old re-hashing all of this, then why do you continue to rehash it? Your original post had nothing at all to do with education yet you felt the need to post it on this blog, because it was the newest. Yet suddenly, when your own hypocrisy is exposed you get tired of re-hashing something that you brought up originally.

I'm also not really sure how you came to assume that something you posted, insulted me. I wasn't insulted. I was just pointing out your own hypocrisy in talking about other people's hypocrisy.

"Ahh, what's a SW post without an insult, posed as a serious question"

Careful Mike, you're victim's showing again.

Let me see if I have this straight. You agree that I am correct in what I say, yet you still feel the need to "correct" me?

"Like I said this is an adult blog and if you can't do any better than cheap insults and immature name calling then I will continue to not answer your questions"

Unsurprising, however, where did I issue immature name calling?

What I find interesting is that after ONLY one year of teaching, you are an expert on all things education related. Even though, you admit your school chose not to keep you on. I guess maybe you are right to say some schools work to keep bad teachers away.

"I was just pointing out your own hypocrisy in talking about other people's hypocrisy."

When will you address your own hypocrisy?

So you don't remember calling me "Mr. Pot" just today? Interesting.

"What I find interesting is that after ONLY one year of teaching, you are an expert on all things education related."

Classic SW changing words in a post to get an insult in. I consider myself an expert in the early parts of educating a teacher because I went through it. The rest, as I clearly stated, but you chose to ignore, was through my experiences with my parents and other teachers throughout my life. It's called research SW. A person doesn't actually have to fully participate to grasp a full understanding of a subject. They research it. I have been researching education for most of my life.

"I guess maybe you are right to say some schools work to keep bad teachers away."

You just can't stay away from the childish insults can you? Since I never admitted that the school did not keep me on it's rather interesting that you would say I did.

I hope one day that you will actually grow up because you could be great at debating, but as long as you continue to issue immature insults and calling names you will continue to be seen for what you are an immature person on a blog.

As for the hypocrisy on my part. I have, but apparently not enough for your tastes.

I will admit that I missed what you were talking about with the insulting. I just didn't read far enough up on the thread. I apologize.

No we are not locked in the narrow scope that I determine. I just believe that if you are going to bring it up it just seems odd that you all of a sudden want to claim that you are tired of re-hashing a subject that you brought up.

Of course, now that you don't want to discuss the subject you brought up you are returning to the adolescent insults. I am not as dumb as you and SW apparently think that I am (insert typical claiming that I am acting the victim routine) an insult is an insult no matter how much you dress it up. It's also worth noting that you seemingly believe, as does SW, that defending one's self against insults is seen as playing the victim. You two are cards, if not immature ones.

I still contend, though, that while you demand that I address my hypocrisies (which as I have stated I have in the past) you refuse and even deny that you are being hypocritical.

Have you ever thought that maybe a better clarification from your point is in order. Simply not doing something because you feel I have it covered is not really a valid argument. Especially when you consider that you take the exact same tone and have similar answers as other posters on this site.

My point is simply, if you want to provide actual balance calling me out because of my view of things would entail calling out other posters for having opposite (and in your view) extreme views. Jumping on the bandwagon is not providing balance.

Calling out myself and the few moderate posters on here, only, does not provide the balance that you strive to achieve. It actually causes more imbalance.

You can call me a hypocrite all you want but until you admit your own hypocritical statements and acts it really doesn't carry any weight.

If you are going to demand that I do something yet you won't do the same you are a hypocrite pure and simple.

"Is that the way you wish to communicate, through insults? If it is, then I will pass. Thanks, anyway!"

Funny that doesn't exactly jive with your first post, and might I add the very first post on this blog:

"That has to be the most pathetic piece of whine and cheese that I have seen you post in all the time I have been reading your 'stuff!'"

Seems a bit hypocritical to declare that I am the one trading insults, and how you want no part in it, yet right off the top your very first post was an insulting post.

I call you immature because when all else fails you insult those that don't agree with you. It's immature and junior highish in nature.

One insult? Really? Are you just counting one post? If you are you have a great point. Let's just look at the insults on this one blog:

"That has to be the most pathetic piece of whine and cheese that I have seen you post in all the time I have been reading your 'stuff!'"

That's one

"Also, History Majors can read, can they not?"

That's two, no matter how you try to spin it, that is meant as an insult. You can play loosey goosey all you want but questioning whether someone can read or not is insulting

"Sometimes, you sound very confused Michael!"

That would be three. Again you can dress it up as much as you want to and pretend it's meant to be serious, but it's just your typical playground type insult.

"Wouldn't that be a good skill for a trained educator?"

That is number four and second in the same posting. This one is meant to question either my intelligence or my abilities as a teacher. Again, dress up as much as you can as I know you will.

"Again, you seem to be confused, Michael."

That would be number 5. I get the feeling that you will be re-hashing this one many times in the coming days and weeks.

Sounds to me like YOU are the one trying to play victim. Kind of like Mike Huckabee the other day saying twice in one program that Obama grew up in Kenya. Only to come back and claim that it was a slip of the tongue and he immediately apologized for it (which he didn't). Then he went on to claim that it's the liberal bloggers who are pushing this claiming that in page 183 of his new book he talks about Obama's upbringing in Indonesia (which again he doesn't).

By the way it's all well and good that you claim that you have nothing personal against me only the way in which I express my politics. I guess I should feel fortunate that I am the only one whose politics you seem to disagree with, with exception to Boomer that is. You seem to love others extreme politics, just not what you consider to be mine.

Sorry I meant Geezer, my mistake.

Michael, do you consider "childish" and "immature" to be insulting words when addressing adults?

Why would someone who thinks most of Mikes blogs are a waste of time continue to read and respond? Usually when I believe something is a waste of time I move on.

Mike,

I am not too suprised at your reply to my posts. You will see the negative in anything. It is sorta telling that you don't even begin to answer any questions before you go on the attack. Thats okay, Ill answer your questions. I don't expect you to have the knowledge or courage to answer mine.

"Didymus, so in your opinion, are you saying that people that are fighting for their rights "stir up trouble" and are "whiners and complainers"?"

--Posted by MichaelHendricks

No, but do I think that any teacher that would abandon their job, either lying about being sick or not, and go protest when they should be teaching is a bad teacher. It is no different than calling in sick because you don't want to go to work. It is unethical. I notice that you didn't mention a code of ethics in your rambling blog of the things teachers have to do. Didn't you have to read and sign one? But in my opinion, protest all they want! Free speech is a right. But to abandon the worthwhile thing they are doing? yup, bad teacher in my opinion. Does that answer your question? To make it clearer, PROTEST=OK NEGLECTING WHAT YOU ARE CONTRACTED TO DO=NOT OK

There are alot of whiners and complainers that are not teachers, or are ex-teachers.

Feel free to label me with the "childish" and "immature" tag you like to put on people that disagree with you. There are thousands of pre-adolecents that do that every day.

As a side note, calling you Mr. Pot is a pretty adult insult. I am assuming that it irritates you because had a problem with Cannabis in the past, abuse at least if not dependence. An immature person would focus on that. But using the old saying "that is like the pot calling the Kettle black" is a fairly sophisticated dig that most children wouldn't get.

"Why weren't you this hard on the TEA Party protests?"

--Posted by MichaelHendricks

This is tied to my earlier answer. I don't believe that the TEA Party protesters left what they were contracted to do to go protest. There is nothing wrong with excercising your right to free speech. If the teachers that went and protested went on the weekend, evening or any other time they weren't contracted to teach students there would be no real issue there. Oh, sure some people would complain. But they would be as silly as the people that complain about the TEA party protests.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. There was much to your reply that was not true. You are drawing alot of incorrect conclusions about what I said. I assume to try to color peoples view of me and discredit my beliefs. Shame on you!

Please show me the same courtesy that I showed you and actually answer any of my questions. You tend to try and slime your way out of direct answers by attacking.

I'm sorry Didymus but the last time I checked the Constitution it didn't say that the people had a right to redress the government UNLESS they are under contract. You are putting limitations on freedoms. I can promise you that there were TEA Partners that took off from work to join in the protests.

All I see is a poster bending over backwards to defend one set of protesters while trying to find ANYTHING to get upset by another group.

Just so I have this correct you making a connection that I didn't state in my blog (Your assertion that I alluded that teachers were forced to go to extracurricular activities so you could call it HOGWASH. A claim you have yet to prove) is perfectly fine. Yet me using your exact words is somehow putting words in your mouth?

Just a little clarity I asked you a question about the TEA Parties. I apologize if you see that as putting words in your mouth.

Sad to see that you consider name-calling an adult activity.

I wish I could be surprised that you would focus on a negative story about teachers. I wish I cold be but sadly I expected it.

bigdawg,

"Why would someone who thinks most of Mikes blogs are a waste of time continue to read and respond? Usually when I believe something is a waste of time I move on."

Well, you also said you would litter your yard with old cars and appliances. I continue to read and respond, because we all have time to waste, and I'd rather do this than play farmville.

"All I see is a poster bending over backwards to defend one set of protesters while trying to find ANYTHING to get upset by another group"

Are you talking about Sir Didymus or yourself here Mike?

I thought he had a valid argument. When you sign a contract you obligate yourself, therefore the only person who could take away your right, would be you by freely giving up your time. When you default on your contract you should be held accountable, not celebrated for your "courage" to defraud your employer.

Another note about your "research". Your opinion garnered from talking to your parents and one year of teaching makes you an expert? Hubris.

My wife has been employed in public schools for 9 years, relatives of mine have over 100 years of experience as educators in public schools. I have been contracted to work with the Department of Education for 3 years. Does this make my opinions any more factual than yours?

How many years did your father teach in public schools?

doodle bug,

"Michael, do you consider "childish" and "immature" to be insulting words when addressing adults?"

Don't you know by now that it is only hypocritical when someone who disagrees with Mike does something. Anything he does is on the up and up.

Mr. Pot,

So nice to see you again: "I call you immature because when all else fails you insult those that don't agree with you. It's immature and junior highish in nature"

Or is immature and junior highish meant as a compliment here?

Let me sum up this post by saying: I know you are but what am I?

Here is another Mike Classic!

"You can call me a hypocrite all you want but until you admit your own hypocritical statements and acts it really doesn't carry any weight"

Does this mean Mike believes his statements don't carry any weight?

Mike,

You've mentioned at least twice that you've addressed your hypocrisy, I'm sorry but I don't know when you've done that, could you refresh my memory?

Also, if you say you have "addressed" your hypocrisy, yet you continue to be a hypocrite, you haven't really addressed it.

lets adress the 14 posts to this blog ( a waste of time in your opnion). Wow, how much free time to waste do you have?

A lot.

well dawg, a minor point, but some of us that have reached retirement age (and that varies from person to person and career to career) do know how to use a computer (even at our advanced age lol).

Mike,

Thank you for answering my questions. Oh, wait you haven't, You just try and fit more of your words in my mouth. To use one of your favorite expressions, "thank you for proving my point". Lets start with my oppressing freedoms. Where did I say that people weren't allowed to use thier rights? I just said it was unethical to neglect their responsibilities. I begin to wonder if you know anything about ethical behavior. If any of the TEA party protesters (which you brought up, by the way, not me. I don't see how that makes me bending over backwards to defend them.) neglected through subterfuge their responsibilities they were unethical as well, and should have scorn heaped upon them. Feel free to post proof and I will join you in disparaging them. Probably not with the vehemence you show, but I will try.

I thought I had already answered the question about the TEA partiers, but let me quote myself. Try and use some reading comprehension this time.

"Free speech is a right. But to abandon the worthwhile thing they are doing? yup, bad teacher in my opinion. Does that answer your question? To make it clearer, PROTEST=OK NEGLECTING WHAT YOU ARE CONTRACTED TO DO=NOT OK"

--Posted by Sir Didymus

that is part. see? no evil limiting rights.

" I don't believe that the TEA Party protesters left what they were contracted to do to go protest. There is nothing wrong with excercising your right to free speech. If the teachers that went and protested went on the weekend, evening or any other time they weren't contracted to teach students there would be no real issue there. Oh, sure some people would complain. But they would be as silly as the people that complain about the TEA party protests."

--Posted by Sir Didymus

There, does that make sense now?

I hope I have answered your questions. Please, I ask again, do me the courtesy of reciprocating. I am interested to know why your argument for why it is okay for someone to behave unethically (if you know what that means) because someone else MIGHT have acted unethically. Did your parents with their 60 years of education experience neglect to teach you that "Two wrongs don't make a right"? Or, perhapse you didn't learn it, or are so consumed with your own bigotry to apply it.

About the HOGWASH. Do you understand the difference between allude and imply? Let me learn you some vocabularies.

Allude

--verb (used without object), -lud·ed, -lud·ing.

1. to refer casually or indirectly; make an allusion (usually followed by to ): He often alluded to his poverty.

Imply

verb (used with object), -plied, -ply·ing.

1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.

2. (of words) to signify or mean.

You implied that extracurricular activies are required by placing them with all the myriad things that teachers have to do. Look at your writings, if you didn't mean it to fit there, dont place it there. Learn how to write if you want to avoid misunderstandings.

If this doesn't make sense ask someone else that you trust. They can explain it in words of two syllables or less.

Mike,

Tell me, can you define rights and responsibilities for me? Feel free to "prove my point" by not answering. I am sure you can try and get away with it by saying that I am a big ole childish immature name calling meany.

I think you need to reread my blog Didymus. My mention of extra curricular activities is in its own paragraph. I believe that you assigned the implication and then attempted to place the blame on me.

How is it unethical to use your Comstitutional rights? Teacher or TEA Party if you believe something the government is doing to be wrong, you protest.

Your question is intriguing but the two examples you use ate apples and oranges. The governor moved to strip rights away from the people in turn redressed his actions by protesting. This is not nearly as simple as you want to make it with your" Two wrongs don't make a right" argument.

Maybe that's because when it comes to the First Amendment (and in my opinion the most important one) I have a strict interpretation while you apparently have a broad interpretation.

Good article, Michael. Teachers have to do a lot of things that many folks don't recognize. The qualifications are higher than most occupations. For the most part teachers do a great job of educating our youth.

Where the kids don't learn or don't graduate, I don't think very much of that is due to poor teaching. The influence of parents with poor parenting skills (they aren't tested are they?) is very much evident in their children's lack of academic achievment. The influcence of peers can be as bad or worse than bad parenting. A lot of kids come to school with problems no teacher or school can cure.

The teacher protests in Wisconsin are mostly about money. The state and local governments there are broke and can't fund everything; there just isn't enough revenue to do it. Busting the public sector unions is a way to give governments the power to balance their budgets.

Too many people portray the government cutbacks as part of a meanness, a nastiness. If your kid wants stuff you can't afford, are you mean or nasty to say, "No."? I don't think so.

Mike,

Here is what you said about extra curricular activities:

"Anything done outside of the school hours and school week are unpaid, unless there is a small stipend (typically occurring on school trips). For the teacher, these unpaid hours is where they typically do most of their work. This is when they plan for the next day (once a teacher has been teaching many years these hours do get a little shorter but not much).

None of this includes all of the sports games, dances, trips, concerts that teachers will go to in a semester let alone a year."

While it is true that you did set this off in two separate paragraphs, you previously said anything outside of 40 hours was considered outside of contact. Now I understand what you were talking about but I can also see why someone not familiar with how school's work could feel you are implying that the extra curricular stuff is expected. You clearly said that teachers are sometimes paid for extra curricular so I understand Sir Didymus' misunderstanding. You also said this is where teachers do their work, so it makes sense that it is expected of them. If someone thought the first paragraph spoke to expected behavior and the second to voluntary I think they would be wrong but it would be forgivable.

It's funny though that you continue to harp on that point rather than answer his questions.

Mike,

"How is it unethical to use your Comstitutional rights? Teacher or TEA Party if you believe something the government is doing to be wrong, you protest."

Are you not reading his posts, because you've already decided he must be wrong, or do you really not understand what he is saying?

He clearly said protesting is great but that to violate your contract is unethical. Do you deny that violating your contract is unethical?

"Maybe that's because when it comes to the First Amendment (and in my opinion the most important one) I have a strict interpretation while you apparently have a broad interpretation."

What is your interpretation of the First Amendment?

Mike,

Here's a couple to add to your list; courage and determination. As a teacher you will face parents, principles, superintendents, school boards, faculty and students who will call you a failure. It takes great courage and determination to face these obstacles, even if your methods are right. It takes even greater courage and determination to realize they may be right and you must change. So Mike, if your going to teach, then teach. Do your very best work every day of your life, and leave your best teaching days in the classroom.

Actually SW I didn't decide he was wrong YOU decided that I did. Huge difference.

What Didymus and I had was a difference of opinions.

Having said that, if a person is fighting for something they believe in and using their Constitutional rights to do so then no they are not acting in an unethical manner and therefore not violating their contract.

Boomer I disagree that the situation in Wisconsin is about money since the Unions have already agreed to what Walker wanted in regards to how much they pay towards retirement and other monetary considerations. What they are fighting for now is their right to collective bargaining.

Mike,

I dispair of you ever understanding ethics. This might be a suprise to you. Here is some of the code of ethics for teachers in the state of Arkansas from the licencing board. I will put the relevant part in caps.

Standard 4:

1.

The case study regarding "leave" has also generated several questions. The Code of Ethics does not address any leave policies of schools or school districts but is concerned with the HONESTY IN THE REPORTING OF LEAVE.

Supposedly you were under this code of ethics. So I ask,(even though you are apparently far too craven to answer any of my questions) is it ethical for the teachers to call in sick to go protest? Try and stay away from criminal thinking and rationalizeing bad behavior.

P.S. Thank you once again for "proving my point" It "humors" me.

hey mike, a piece of advice. Dont respond to anyone who thinks your blog is a waste of time.

This is a little off topic, but there is a School Teacher from Ketchum, Id. who is going to make another attempt at running the 39th annual Iditarod Sled Dog Race. This race is commonly known as the Last Great Race and it is run each year to honor the Sled Dog Mushers which delivered life saving Serum in 1925 to the town of Nome, Alaska.

This ended up being a project that involved his student participation -- they actually constructed the dog sled that he used on this journey. Having constructed a few sleds myself, I can testify that these students learned advanced wood working skills outside of what is normally available to students.

Last year the students were even given the opportunity to travel to Alaska and see the Iditarod first hand -- I would have gladly traded any body part to have done that when I was in School as a young man.

The key to great education is the involvement by the community and the efforts of teachers to recognize what motivates their students. Once this is accomplished education becomes less of something you have to do, to more of something you want to do.

Following are a couple links to the Iditarod Sled Dog Race in case anyone would like to follow the 62 teams of 16 dogs as they traverse across 1000 miles of remote Alaska.

The race starts today at 5:00 Central Time.

http://www.iditarod.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Iditarod-Trail-Committee/112545578798091?ref=mf

I don't see how this proves your point. I suppose this may stem from the very much discredit report that teachers were calling in sick to strike. Since there is no strike going on, the original story was debunked within hours.

If a teacher is under fire for violating a code of ethics because it is illegal for them to strike or even protest then no I do not believe them to be unethical. I believe the party responsible for the code of ethics to be unethical.

You are, however, changing your original argument however. You originally stated that any teacher that protested were "stirring up trouble" and "whiners and complainers". You then when on to call them unethical for protesting while school was in session. Now you are changing the argument to teachers that lie about protesting being the ones unethical.

Mike,

No, I am just trying to answer your questions as they come. See, I have integrity, which you apparently do not.

No, Didymus, you aren't answering my questions as they came, since I didn't pose any those questions. You posed those questions.

I was simply pointing out that as I was answering your questions you were continually (to steal a football analogy) moving the goal posts.

However, I see where this debate is going. No matter what I say you are apparently going to take any opportunity to question either my ethics or my integrity, based on your own opinions.

and we all know Michael would NEVER do that

Mike,

Okay, listing your questions and answering each one isn't answering questions. I see that you washed your brain and can't do a thing with it.

Mike,

I understand you running away from my questions because I tease you and make you look foolish, but why do you run away from everyone else's?

You are the one who keeps avoiding the subject, I don't think anyone said anything about teachers striking except you. Do you deny that teachers protested at the capitol when they should have been teaching leading to the closure of several schools in Wisconsin? Again I'm not saying they were "striking" since that would be illegal as you say.

Mike,

Have you watched "Waiting for Superman" yet? I'm eagerly awaiting your blog on it.

Mike,

Still waiting for answers to my questions.

Mike,

You aren't doing much for the view that all liberals and liberal societies run away and are cowards and surrender-monkeys.

Sir Didymus,

Mike said: "No, Didymus, you aren't answering my questions as they came, since I didn't pose any those questions"

He probably doesn't need to ask any questions because he already knows everything.

Didymus, I have been thinking on this for quite a while and I would like to address a few things you have stated in the past.

I have made the statement that ethics can be widely defined by different people. You say that they can't. You judge me to not have any ethics because I don't agree with your ethics. In my opinion this actually helps prove my point that ethics means different things to different people. I don't see a person's ethics as being so black and white that you can claim that you have ethics and someone else doesn't

Just because I don't agree with your ethics does not mean I am void of ethics, I just have a different set of ethics than you do.

Mike,

Do me a favor and look up universal ethical principles and/or universal moral principles. That is what I was talking about. I assume that you actually read my comments that you are now talking about. bigdawg did, he understood what I was talking about and I am willing to bet that bigdawg and I stand opposed in many other political things. This stuff ain't political. There are universal principles. I was asking if you felt that a teacher called in sick to go protest was behaving ethically. There that is exactly what I meant. You never answered me, you just attempted to pin me with "protesting is unethical". Thats okay, Ill assume you did not understand my question. Now I hope it is clear.

I will try to break down why I think that it would be unethical.

1) All teachers are required to observe a standard of ethics. They probably have to sign something like the one I posted a link to in Arkansas. The one that you were under. So, they would not be showing a 'law and order' level of moral/ethical reasoning.

2) They would be also abandoning their duty to the children that they are supposed to be helping learn. So they are ignoring the welfare of others, or not doing harm. That is a universal moral/ethical standard.

What it comes down to is this, I believe (and it is just my opinion, mind you). That a teacher who would call in sick to go protest is operating at a "what can I get out of it for me" level of moral/ethical reasoning. I realize that some would argue that they are looking out for the welfare of others than themselves. However,if they call in sick, the lie that is made to ultimately protect them from the consequences of thier actions puts them at a "what can I get for me" level of moral/ethical reasoning.

BUT, if they are doing it on their own time, or for that matter telling the school board "bugger off, this is the right thing to do", that would make me more likely to give them a pass on the action being ethical. See?

If I ever said you were void of ethics I apologize. I don't think that I said you don't have ethics. I know I said that you do not understand ethics, probably that I question your ethics, or you have questionable ethics. I stand by that. You prove it with your so called arguments about situational ethics or whatever you want to call it, and then behaving towards one set of protesters differently than another.

The fact of the matter is, for a teacher to call in sick to protest is unethical. The fact that you are arguing it means, you don't understand ethical behavior or that your bigotry towards anyone who disagrees with your viewpoins will not allow you to consider anything else.

Both are sad. Hopefully you can understand what I am saying and if it is a barrier to you making benificial decisions you can correct it.

I am not JUST attacking you. I am a little, but thats because I get irritated when someone tries to put words in my mouth. There is good news for you. If you know what the universal ethical/moral principles are and think hard about setting aside your bias you CAN be more ethical! You aren't condemned to the ethical level of a toddler.

It is possible that your bias is leading you to excuse unethical behavior. That isn't good, or geared towards acting at a high level of moral/ethical reasoning.

There is a set of sociatal ethics that are situational and cultural. But, some ethics are universal, and non-partisan. I could talk about it all day. As is fairly obvious. It is an interest of mine.

Mike- what has happened to you? You need to hit delete more often or just not respond.

You cannot reserve the right to change your mind or just make stuff up and be taken seriously. Get a grip man!

What ate you talking about willis (Wallis)?

As I have stated Didymus I have answered your question quite clearly. The fact that you have changed my answer to what you believe I said is a clear indication that you truly aren't looking for an answer just a reason to rant. Well go ahead and rant all you want

Mike,

Well, if I paraphrased incorrectly, please let me know what it was. But when your "answer" isn't to questions I asked, you still haven't answered. I'm pretty sure I'm right, and others do too.

"You never answered me, you just attempted to pin me with "protesting is unethical"."

That would be your paraphrase, Didymus.

I get the point though, since you don't believe I have answered the question (though considering your paraphrase of what you think I said is a clear indication that you got stuck on one post and never bothered to read any of my other posts) and "others" also believe this then that must be you are right and I was wrong.

However, since I have answered your question several times, clearly that seems to throw a wrench in your little theory.

Mike,

Read what you wrote lateley?

"Didymus, so in your opinion, are you saying that people that are fighting for their rights "stir up trouble" and are "whiners and complainers"?"

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Mar 3, 2011, at 8:26 AM

To which I tried to clarify I was speaking of those that called in sick to protest.

"PROTEST=OK NEGLECTING WHAT YOU ARE CONTRACTED TO DO=NOT OK"

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Mar 3, 2011, at 11:02 PM

To which you replied,

"I'm sorry Didymus but the last time I checked the Constitution it didn't say that the people had a right to redress the government UNLESS they are under contract. You are putting limitations on freedoms."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 7:51 AM

Want to check your last post for veracity? That sounds suspiciously like you tried to pin me with "protesting is unethical" Or, even worse, excercising your rights is unethical.

Watch your acusations. Especially before you take down that blog so there can be no proof.

Okay let me try it this way. You said:

"PROTEST=OK NEGLECTING WHAT YOU ARE CONTRACTED TO DO=NOT OK"

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Mar 3, 2011, at 11:02 PM

To me these are completely different statements. In the second statement you try to shape the argument to make it appear that if a person protests and they take off work they are neglecting their work. Fine.

Let me say it clear one final time and I hope you understand it this time.

Protesting, to me, is perfectly fine. I do not see any ethical issues with protesting especially when what you are protesting can affect your contracted job in a negative way.

"That sounds suspiciously like you tried to pin me with "protesting is unethical" Or, even worse, excercising your rights is unethical."

No, that's exactly what I am saying. You say that protesting is fine unless you are taking time away from your job to do it. In that case you are saying that if you are taking time out of your contracted job to protest you are being unethical. In other words protesting is unethical if you are contracted.

"I'm sorry Didymus but the last time I checked the Constitution it didn't say that the people had a right to redress the government UNLESS they are under contract. You are putting limitations on freedoms."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 7:51 AM

I completely stand by this statement because it appears to me that you ARE saying that redressing the government (protesting) is fine UNLESS you are under contract then to you it is unethical and people become "whiners" and "complainers" and that they are "stirring up trouble".

I do notice that you don't exactly deny that you don't see protesting as unethical or exercising your rights as being unethical. Instead you threaten me by telling me to watch my accusations.

I'm not taking anything down because I want people to see what you are saying.

Mike,

You are wrong.

Evidentally you are unable to see, but....

I have said it a few different ways. Here is crystal clear.

It is unethical to lie about missing work.

It is not unethical to protest.

If you lie about being sick to work to go protest, it is unethical. It would be unethical to lie about being sick in order to go to your brother's wedding too. See? is it clear now? I fear that the explanation would be lost on you so lets leave it at that. This isn't rocket surgery, man!

Mike,

Forgot to put a bit on. I never once said that they couldn't go protest. I said it was unethical. Your all or nothing thinking was acting up.

Mike, I think you are an idiot or dishonest.

"No, that's exactly what I am saying. You say that protesting is fine unless you are taking time away from your job to do it. In that case you are saying that if you are taking time out of your contracted job to protest you are being unethical. In other words protesting is unethical if you are contracted"

Nobody said it is unethical to protest, but you keep beating that horse trying to claim that's what people say. You either are not intelligent enough to understand what people are saying or you are lying in order to try to make your statements seem less ridiculous.

I don't think Sir Didymus could have made it any more clear than he just did, why don't you read that post then reflect on what he said and what you said.

Do you think it is unethical to call in sick to work when you are not in fact sick? That is the only ethical question that was raised.

I really don't understand what your disconnect here is Didymus. I do not see it as being unethical to call in sick to go protest (I have stated this clearly time and time again yet for some reason you seem to be stuck on it), I also do not see it as being unethical to call in sick to go to family members funeral. Seriously, if you have to call in sick to where you work to go to a family members funeral I think the people you are working for are unethical for not letting you have that time off.

It is an interesting dichotomy though. You have no problem with people going to protest or go to a family member's funeral unless they have to call in sick because the place they work for will not give them time off to do so. At that point you fault the worker and call them unethical for doing so.

By the way you tag me as only being able to think in an all or nothing mode, yet you yourself will not allow that ethics is not as black and white as you want to make it out to be.

"I do not see it as being unethical to call in sick to go protest (I have stated this clearly time and time again yet for some reason you seem to be stuck on it), I also do not see it as being unethical to call in sick to go to family members funeral. Seriously, if you have to call in sick to where you work to go to a family members funeral I think the people you are working for are unethical for not letting you have that time off."

So were the school districts in Wisconsin unethical in your view because they expected teachers to fulfill contracts and teach children?

Maybe this explains why you didn't get kept on at your school, you might want to not mention your ethics to any current or future employers, I'm pretty sure if they expect you to be at work they don't want you to LIE to them. Really that's all one would be doing after lying, do you disagree?

And maybe you could act like an adult one of these days, SW. We can dream can't we?

You are the epitome of what I am talking about SW. You are incapable of posts without some sort of insult, name-calling, intelligence questioning, self-righteous behavior.

If you were able to simply debate or talk without trying to get one silly insult in you might be taken serious.

I am anxiously awaiting the next time you go storming off and boycott me and take no one else with you.

There really is not point in answering your "serious" questions because all you do is surround them with insults.

Of course having said that I fully expect you to come back and claim that I am running away from your questions. I'm not, I'm choosing not to answer because I can't take you serious anymore. You act like a bully in a school yard who tries to pick on other kids but without great success.

>>>>>>>

I am speechless. When I read this it was like getting struck by a lightening bolt.

Mike Hendricks now says it is ok to lie.

Without a moral compass debate is no longer possible.

Mike,

Thank you ever so much for finally answering the question. Your answer does prove your ethics (or lack therof) though.

SW,

Don't worry, Mike will probably take this blog down.

You know, this really does explain a lot of why Mike always assumes everyone is lying when they disagree with him. They always say you see the things you don't like about yourself in others, and view others as you do yourself. Since Mike feels it is appropriate to lie to get what you want, he most likely sees lies all around him. Because he knows he lies when it suits him, I imagine he assumes everyone else does too. Sad really.

"Of course having said that I fully expect you to come back and claim that I am running away from your questions"

Recognition is part of the solution, good work. Unfortunately you still need to work on the denial piece I think.